Are you suggesting that if I call this "reporter" a "moron"....then I am violating his right to free speech???

Is that honestly what you are saying???

There is so much wrong with your thinking, but let me just point out one thing...The Constitution limits and grants authority to the FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT...not individuals. That is why if I own a private business, I can ban guns on my property...I can also tell you that if you want to come
on to my property, that you have no right to free speech or I will have you removed.

It is hilariou to me that the so called "champions" of the Constitution act so tyranical against everyone and everthing they don't agree with. How
many pro-gun lovers out there do you think support Gay Rights? How many Conservatives out there crying about wanting the Government out of their
lives also want the Government to define what marriage is?

I swear, sometimes I think Conservatives are by far the worst enemy to freedom we have in this nation.

But then agian you can't get any more clear than this:

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed.

Rather clear what that means there is no debate to be had.

Yes, very clear to me...if you want a gun...go join the National Guard.

What, did some armed goon follow you down the street, demanding your ID and birthdate for voicing your opinion here?

How did we miss that?

How do you interpret that as supression of free speech?

He was NYPD, on duty as the Mayors security, he has the same right as anyone else does to ask questions and follow someone who may be a potential
threat. He didn't detain the reporter, he didn't arrest him, he simply asked him questions.

You guys get so butt hurt about people you don't agree with calling out the idiots on your side (this "reporter")...you would be much better off if
you just did the same thing.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

The NFA, and the Brady laws and the ASWBS of the 90s clear violations of the second amendment extending to the ban of importation of weapons that
earlier generations had clear access to, but no longer do,

No American can buy any machine gun made after 1980's unless LEO.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Clear violation with the recent ban in New York that interjects governnemnt hands in to the majority homes in that state

Feinsteins introduction of the ASWB of 2013.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person
be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.

Again New York and Feinstein clearly trying to hold people who committed no crime responsible for actions of mass shootings.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to
have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Gun owners across the country are being held responsible for crimes they did not commit and were not given their day in courts.

Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and
no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The property in question carries a value of over 20 dollars.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.

The gun debate in a nutshell and using propaganda to usurp consitutional rights

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

The people is the source of power of the government not the government has unlimited power to tell us what we need or don't need.

The fact you even ask that question makes me want to question your even being on ATS.......

I makes me think that you quite possibly are a government shill, who is trying to get people to say something that may get them in trouble with your
masters.

But I will humor you!

You are like a whittler on my rights and freedoms. You exemplify, the workings of an out of control government, whom is try to slowly whittle away the
rights of it's citizens in such a way that it is done so slowly and such a manner that before the citizens are aware of what is happening to them it
is too late!

See, the problem is, those like you whom could care less about taking the rights away from others, have been doing it for so long, that the little
piece of wood you started out whittling away on, is now becoming not so indistinguishable. We can see your intentions, and we have drawn our line in
the sand!

You so innocently ask, "Well what rights are being taken away from you.". When anyone who can read and have any level of reading comprehension, can
quite easily understand the meaning of the 2nd Ammendment. It has nothing to do with hunting. It is quite clear that it has to do with protecting the
citizens against a tyrannical government.

Sure, you don't like it, and you are prepared to lie to anyone you can, to try and get your agenda stepped up to the next level, but you have a
problem at this point.

Much more clearly than you interpret it for someone debating you on a website.

The police are overstepping their bounds when they follow you, ask for your ID (especially outside of their jurisdiction) and demand to know your
birth date.... without probable cause. People have sued police departments and won their cases for this, it is called harassment.

They know that the man(the guy that has a camera following him and a press pass) was not a threat. They saw the pass, they saw his ID.... yet
continued to follow him. Pure harassment for daring to ask his highness the mayor a tough question.

One of his own security team may have posed more of a threat than this guy. They were armed and probably dislike their boss, and they are cops,
usually hired for reasons other than high intelligence. In the video, I swear the one really did look cross-eyed, better give him a gun!

No one is asking for a security detail provided at government expense - we are only asking for the right to defend ourselves or our loved ones in the
absence of such.

With you there in spirit, however, I probably would have worded it differently.

The very second you find yourself "asking" for your Rights, is the moment they turn into something else entirely.

Keep that in mind.

If you have read any of my other posts on gun control I really am not really a person who is "asking" for anything - I could have used want,
demand, need, are entitled to, etc.

Asking just seemed the right word at the time since it is less argumentative. No reason to stir the pot unnecessarily.

I am not one of those who believe the government grants us rights. There are those in this thread who do believe that though. Rights are inherent
and unalienable.

I, having taught Government 101 at a Community College know that the Constitution is a document that was intended to be a document that limits/grants
government rights from the people not the other way around.

Yes, very clear to me...if you want a gun...go join the National Guard.

The SCOTUS decision in the Heller case says that you are wrong about this.
But that is just the Supreme Court deciding Constitutional law.

Yes, but the SCOTUS also said in the Heller case the right to bear arms, like most other rights, is not unlimited. You can put some restrictions on
it.

I was responding to the assertion that the only way you may own a weapon is to 'join the National Guard'. It is right there in the
center of the quotes above.

My statement is still true. According to SCOTUS, you can restrict who gets guns (felons and mentally ill), and even restrict certain kinds of guns
(those deemed dangerous and unusual, i.e., not commonly used for personal defense). That pretty much ends the gun control debate in my opinion.

You so innocently ask, "Well what rights are being taken away from you.". When anyone who can read and have any level of reading comprehension, can
quite easily understand the meaning of the 2nd Ammendment. It has nothing to do with hunting. It is quite clear that it has to do with protecting the
citizens against a tyrannical government.

Let's assume you are correct. Would not that mean that a country's citizenry be entitled to equal arms ar thier government? It reminds me of John
Rocker on WND opining that "If the Jews had guns the Holocaust wouldn't have happened"...well I am pretty sure the French military had guns and it
still didn't slow down Hitler...ditto other countries Germany occupied. It took a multi-national alliance of nations.

I am having a hard time believeing that skeeter in alabama is going to foil a socialist take-over with his AR.

Originally posted by xedocodex
He was NYPD, on duty as the Mayors security, he has the same right as anyone else does to ask questions and follow someone who may be a potential
threat.

Your knowledge of the law is limited I can see that. They were not in NYC, the NYPD has exactly ZERO jurisdiction in D.C. His sole duty is to
protect the Mayor - period, that is what a PSD (Personal Security Detail) does. They are allowed to carry their firearms there in a reciprocal
agreement with the D.C. and Capitol Police Departments. This reciprocity doesn't extend to the power of arrest.

Also, if you are assuming that anyone has the right to follow (stalk) and ask questions (harass) a person they feel threatened by may be in for a
shock when the police do respond to your complaint and arrest you rather than the one you fear when they find the "threat" to be a lawful CCW
permit holder, credentialed reporter, or whatever the case may be. You will be the one guilty of the crimes stalking, harassment, intimidation,
threats - etc.

Originally posted by xedocodex
He didn't detain the reporter, he didn't arrest him, he simply asked him questions.

I don't know what you call it when someone stops you from going where you want to go but I call that being detained. So does the law BTW. When an
LEO detains you he must have probable cause - asking the Mayor questions that made him look like a tool won't meet that burden in any court. The
reporter handled it poorly as most do when detained by an LEO because they feel threatened by their position and authority. That is called
intimidation.

He should have asked if he was under arrest...until the "officer" either said yes , which would have made a great case for false arrest and an
awesome lawsuit a first year law student could win or no in which case he could have just walked away.

He had no legal obligation to answer any of this “officer’s” questions – period.

The reason the "officer" was asking to see his ID was specifically to get his name so they could run it for warrants or priors in the hopes they
could harass or detain him further. They needed his birth date likely because there are many people with the same name. They wanted to add him to
a list that would ban him from all press pools for the Mayors events.

I have worked PSD for the State Department and other officials - this is fairly standard practice to keep people who make your guy look bad out of
events.... It is not right but it’s also not illegal.

Why do you deflect from the history of dictators who took away their citizens ability to defend themselves????

I skipped the rant and insult and just excerpted the only remotely sane thing you said...

To answer this question...Because the idea that we a Stalinist Russia or a Maoist China or will become one soon ..Or that owning these weapons would
halt a take-over of the scale that your paranoid fantasy imagines...makes no sense in the context of reality.

Because the NRA and Gun Lobby appeal to these fantasies of tyrannical rule in the USA in order to shut down any rational discussion on background
checks, research...anything at all...no! Tyranny!!

And honestly, what you get when one party fails to have a sane discussion? Gun Bans...

I have said it before, this line of BS...Why does the President of the United States have armed guards and I don't??!!!!...does nothing but damage
the 2nd Amendment.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.